Conventional wisdom has it that people are more likely to go to a meeting if they have something to complain about.
That conventional wisdom was turned on its head when about 40 producers gathered in Saskatoon to talk about the Canadian Grain Commission and the Canada Grain Act.
The meeting was a veritable love-in, with farmer after farmer standing up at the microphone to support the job being done by the grain industry regulator.
“Every farmer here seems to be unanimous that they like the way the CGC works and they don’t want to see big changes,” said producer Cam Goff.
Read Also
Petition launched over grazing lease controversy
Battle continues between the need for generation of tax revenue from irrigation and the preservation of native grasslands in southern Alberta rural municipality.
He thinks that’s an accurate reflection of farmers’ views across the Prairies.
“I don’t believe there are many critics of the Canadian Grain Commission in the farm community,” said Goff, who travelled from his farm near Hanley, Sask., to attend the day-long meeting at a Saskatoon hotel.
There were a few complaints about past CGC decisions involving issues like licensing producer car loading sites and grain company security rules, along with concerns that the senior executives at the commission too often favour grain industry interests over farmers.
But the overall message was that the government should essentially leave the commission alone and provide more funding so it can do a better job of serving farmers.
“We have to be very, very cautious in tinkering with an act and an agency that have been so successful,” said Rob Lobdell of Eston, Sask.
The Saskatoon meeting was one of eight across Canada called by a team of consultants conducting a review of the grain commission.
The review was initiated last year by Parliament and the panel plans to submit its report to the agriculture minister by the end of August.
The act and the commission have been criticized from all sides in recent years.
Grain companies complain there are too many outdated rules and regulations that stifle innovation and efficiency and cost everyone in the system money.
At the same time, a number of farm groups say the commission has been paying too much attention to the concerns of the grain trade at the expense of farmers.
It was apparent from comments made during the six-hour discussion that the farmers in attendance see the grain commission as an important ally that protects producers’ interests against more powerful grain industry groups.
The Canada Grain Act states that the mandate of the CGC is to regulate the grain industry “in the interests of grain producers.”
Some grain industry groups have complained that that mandate biases the commission against other players such as grain companies and have pushed for a change in the wording to put all stakeholders on an equal footing.
The farmers at the Saskatoon meeting were having none of that, saying they fear the push for change is coming from grain companies who want to dismantle producer protections.
“There is a very big imbalance in power among the various players in the Canadian grain system,” said producer James Woodworth from Elrose, Sask. “To even have a discussion of this cornerstone of the act is suspect right from the start.”
Lobdell agreed, saying the grain commission’s mandate should remain unchanged.
“I don’t think the rest of the grain industry has to be protected against producers,” he told the meeting. “And I don’t think that an act that favours producers is a bad thing.”
Producers at the meeting talked about a variety of ways in which they rely on the commission: ensuring they have access to producer cars; protecting the quality assurance system and making sure farmers receive proper grades for their grain; and acting as an advocate for farmers in disputes with railways and grain companies over service issues.
A number of farmers singled out the CGC’s five assistant commissioners, who are appointed directly by federal cabinet, as being of particular value in providing information to farmers and acting on their behalf in disputes.
The future of those positions is under review, but farmers at the Saskatoon meeting said they should be retained.
“I feel they have some clout in going to talk to elevators or buyers about issues,” said Earl Mickelson of Birch Hills, Sask. “They’re very helpful in an advocacy role.”
Tom Halpenny, one of the consultants conducting the review, said that while farmers at the Saskatoon meeting were obviously satisfied with the way the commission is working, that wasn’t the case at other meetings.
Meetings the previous day in Grande Prairie, Alta., and Red Deer attracted about 10 farmers each, but those who did show up were more supportive of changes to the commission.
“We’re hearing strong views here today and at the other meetings there have been strong views that were slightly different,” he said.
However, Halpenny said there is widespread agreement on two issues: ensuring that producers’ interests are protected under the act and ensuring that the federal government provides the commission with sufficient funding to do its job.
The federal government will decide whether to amend the act and that makes some farmers nervous.
“I believe that the Conservatives are pushing a pro-business approach to a restructuring of the commission,” Goff said.
“I just hope they’ll listen to the strong grassroots support for the commission as now stands and be reasonable.”
